MATHUKUTTI Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD PONNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question in this revision under S. 103 (1) (iii) of the Land Reforms Act (which I will call the Act for short) is whether the petitioner who was an adult unmarried person on 1-1-1970 but had married on 20-8-1970 and had a three year old child on 3-10-1974 when the Taluk Land board, Ponnani passed the impugned order, is entitled to be treated as a family and to have the ceiling area which he could validly retain, determined on that basis. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, that despite S. 83 which lays down that with effect from the notified date (which is 1-1-70), no person shall inter alia own lands in excess of the ceiling area, the petitioner continues to own the lands until the excess lands vest in the Government under s. 86 (1), on the determination of their extent and other details by the Taluk land Board under S, 85. Counsel argued that as the vesting is the crucial and decisive event, which denudes the petitioner of his excess lands, his status, whether as an adult unmarried person or as a family in the sense of S. 2 (14) of the Act, must be determined either as on date of vesting or at least as on the date of the decision of the Board under S. 85 (5 ). THEse contentions which place undue emphasis on S. 86 (1) ignore the effect of S. 83 and 85. S. 83 enacts in mandatory terms that with effect from such dates as may be notified by the government, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage, lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. THE relevant notified date is 1-1-197 0 and in terms of its effect S. 83 forbids a person from owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area with effect from that date. Indeed in view of the peremptory language of the Section it was observed in Joseph v. State of kerala, 1973 KLT 701, at 711, "s. 83 makes unlawful the holding or possession of the lands in excess of the ceiling area after the notified date (1-1-1970)". S. 85 (1) is equally or more emphatic for it enacts that "where a person owns or holds land in excess, of the ceiling area on the: date notified under s. 83, such excess land shall be surrendered as hereinafter provided. " On the terms of the Section there can be no room for doubt that the data with reference to which the ceiling and excess land are determined is the notified date (1-1-1970) and that the status of the person, whether adult unmarried person or family on which depends the extent of the ceiling, is also to be reckoned as on that date. When S. 85 (2 ). provides for the filing of statement by a person who owns or holds lands in excess of the ceiling, it implies the ceiling as on 11 1970. S. 85 (5) which provides for the determination of ceiling and the extent and identity of the excess land, postulates the ceiling and as a corollary the excess land and the status of the person as on the notified date. THEse several provisions, which oblige a person to surrender the excess land owned or held by him are bound up with the status of the person as on 111970, for the ceiling is related to his status as on that date. It is true that under s. 86 the divestiture of the ownership or possession or both of the excess lands the lands to be surrendered is postponed till the determination: of their extent and identity under S. 85 (5 ). But this postponement does not touch the legal position that under the joint operation of S. 83 and 83 the ceiling area, as also inevitably the status of the person, have to be determined as on 1 11970.

(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was, an adult unmarried person on 111970 and the ceiling has been fixed on that basis, ignoring his wife whom he married subsequently as also his child. These latter by themselves have no rights to his lands and if they had been in existence as part of his family on 111970 it would have raised his ceiling; but as it is he was an adult unmarried person on that date and the wife and child were rightly left out of reckoning by the Taluk Land Board.